Apple's "rubber banding" patent (U.S. No. 7,469,381) has been under heavy scrutiny in recent months, with a number of claims found invalid in two different rulings.
The patent, which pertains to the ability for content displayed on iOS devices to "bounce back" when a user scrolls to the top or the bottom of a page, is significant because it is one that was successfully used by Apple against Samsung in the ongoing legal dispute that saw Apple awarded with more than a billion dollars.
According to FOSS Patents, Apple has scored a major victory in regards to the '381 patent, having just received notice that the United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) will issue a reexamination certificate that confirms the formerly invalidated claim 19, which was the portion of the patent used against Samsung. In April, three other claims were also confirmed.
As a result of this new reexamination certificate, claim 19 will enjoy an enhanced presumption of validity against the invalidity theories the patent office evaluated. Instead of invalidation in mid–2017 or later, this patent has now been confirmed in mid–2013.
Apple would presumably have liked to salvage even more claims than the seven claims the patent office is now going to confirm, but claim 19 is the one that matters in the dispute with Samsung, and it’s now stronger than ever.
Samsung has, at multiple points in time, attempted to have the rubber banding patent declared invalid and has also attempted to use the question of the patent’s validity as a reason to delay the November trial that will redetermine a portion of the damages that Samsung must pay to Apple after the original $1 billion ruling was partially thrown out due to jury error.
With the new reexamination certificate, it is unlikely that Samsung will be able to delay or avoid the November trial that will levy additional damages against the company.
Top Rated Comments
this really is, one of the many things Apple did to make the iphone in 2007 easier to use for humans; one of the many things Samsung, er Google knew was patented and copied anyway. All the babble about how in the hell can someone patent this or that, well they did, and so do many many many other companies. Its an implementation method, that, by the way, worked, and worked very well.
Anyway, believe what you want, but I personally think this is one of the major things apple worked out in that first touch screen UI of a mobile phone OS that was a pivoting factor of intuitive design that help propel it to the success that not only Apple, but all the others are enjoying now.
If not, your company wouldn't last a minute in today's world. Patents are not killing innovation. Instead of copying Apple, Samsung could have come up with something comparable for their own devices. That's lack of innovation on Samsung's part - not related to patents whatsoever, IMO.
All of these "small things" that Apple has patented is what makes their phones and user interface so great. They have a right to protect what their hard work (and R&D dollars) created.
IMHO, the rubber-banding was one of the most important behaviors of the iOS UI. The behavior shows something fundamental to our biology -- all parts have a viscoelastic behavior with each other. You can see this behavior if you pull on your earlobe; you can see the same behavior if you squeeze on your earlobe. Such nonlinear behaviors are intuitively obvious in the physical world; they make a huge amount of behavior to use for mobile devices (and, now, in OS X). See my follow-up message (https://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=17421231&postcount=48) for info about the science and liberal arts behind Apple's design.
Do you even know what a patent is?
If it's so not an innovation, why didn't anyone else think of it first, and if it's an innovation without value, why did Samsung copy it as soon as Apple did it?
Not asking you about what Apple copied, or who is good and who is bad, or what company is better. Just very simply, answer the questions above.
It's innovation and Apple has a right to protect it and profit off it for a specified period of time. After that, patents fall off and it belongs to the ages. This mechanism isn't nearly as broken these days as copyright, which can currently be extended into perpetuity.